Tacking (law)

Last updated

Tacking is a legal concept arising under the common law relating to competing priorities between two or more security interests arising over the same asset. The concept is best illustrated by way of example.

Contents

  1. Bank A lends a first advance to the borrower, which is secured by a mortgage over the borrower's property. The mortgage is expressed to secure this advance and any future advances.
  2. Bank B subsequently lends more money to the borrower and takes a second ranking mortgage over the same property.
  3. Bank A then subsequently lends a second advance to the borrower, relying on its original mortgage.

Bank A will always have a first priority claim against the property for the full amount of its first advance. But it will be able to claim against the property in priority to Bank B with respect to its second advance only if it is permitted to tack the second advance to the mortgage that was taken at the time the first advance was made. If Bank A is not permitted to tack the second advance, then Bank B's claim in respect of the sums that it lent will have priority over Bank A's claims with respect to the second advance.

In American jurisprudence, Black's Law Dictionary defines tacking in slightly narrower terms:

1. The joining of consecutive periods of possession by different persons to treat the periods as one continuous period; especially the adding of one's own period of land possession to that of a prior possessor to establish continuous Adverse possession for the statutory period.
2. The joining of a junior lien with the first lien in order to acquire priority over an intermediate lien.

Separately, in the definition of tabula in naufragio , Black's comments:

It may be fairly said that the doctrine survives only in the unjust and much criticised English rule of tacking.

The common law rules

The first case which approached the position in relation to competing mortgagees was Gordon v Graham. [lower-alpha 1] During the nineteenth century, its authority came to be doubted. It was questioned whether it had been correctly reported and, even if correctly reported, whether it correctly stated the law.

The matter subsequently came before the House of Lords in Hopkinson v Rolt. [1] In the case, the borrower entered into a mortgage over his land which was expressed to "secure the sums due and which shall from time to time become due" to the bank. Later, the borrower granted a second mortgage in favour of another creditor. Notice of the second mortgage was given to the bank. The borrower was later declared bankrupt, and a dispute arose as to the priority of the bank with respect to advances which were made under the first mortgage after it had received notice of the second mortgage.

The three law lords who heard the case were divided, with a majority favouring priority for the second mortgagee. Lord Campbell, the Lord Chancellor (with whom Lord Chelmsford agreed), opined:

I must say that the doctrine [in Gordon v Graham] seems to me to be contrary to principle. Although the mortgagor has parted with the legal interest in the hereditaments mortgaged, he remains the equitable owner of all his interest not transferred beneficially to the mortgagee, and he may still deal with his property in any way consistent with the rights of the mortgagee. How is the first mortgagee injured by the second mortgage being executed. . . ? The first mortgagee is secure as to past advances, and he is not under any obligation to make any farther advances (emphasis added). He has only to hold his hand when asked for a farther loan. Knowing the extent of the second mortgage, he may calculate that the hereditaments mortgaged are an ample security to the mortgagees; and if he doubts this, he closes his account with the mortgagor, and looks out for a better security.

The dissenting judge, Lord Cranworth, was in favour of upholding the rule in Gordon v Graham as it was reported. He expressed his view in a dissenting opinion:

I certainly had understood that in such a case, excluding all special circumstances, the first mortgagee would be secure for any subsequent advances covered by his security, even though he had notice of the second mortgage. This is so laid down on authority, has, I believe, been often acted on, and seems to me perfectly just and reasonable.

Mortgages are but contracts; and when once the rights of parties under them are defined and understood, it is impossible to say that any rule regulating their priority is unjust. If the law is once laid down and understood, that a person advancing money on a second mortgage, with notice of a prior mortgage covering future as well as present debts, will be postponed to the first mortgagee, to the whole extent covered or capable of being covered by the prior security, he has nothing to complain of. He is aware when he advances his money, of the imperfect nature of his security, and acts at his peril.

...

The rule ... is a convenient rule, causing injustice to no one. It has, probably, been often acted on, and to depart from it may, I think, retrospectively cause great injustice, and prospectively prevent advances of money by bankers or others, where such advances might be safely and usefully made.

Actual notice

Although for years it had been supposed that it was sufficient for the first mortgagee to have either actual or constructive notice of the second mortgage, in Westpac Banking Corporation v Adelaide Bank Limited [2] it was held that constructive notice was not sufficient, and that a first mortgagee could tack future advances unless it had actual notice of the second ranking security.

Effect of subordination

Where a subordination agreement places a later mortgage in higher priority than one previously granted, the validity of releases granted by the previous mortgagors will have a significant impact on the priority assigned to each of the secured debts in question. In 2014, the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador held in Medoc Properties Limited v. Standard Trust Company [3] that the failure by an assignee to release one of two assigned mortgages with respect to such an agreement resulted in differing priorities given to them.

Term loans and overdrafts

The common law rules relating to tacking have caused difficulty in relation to overdrafts and revolving loan facilities because of the rule in Clayton's Case , [4] which provided that in relation to any account, payments into the account are presumed to discharge the earliest debts first. This has been held to have several effects: [5]

  • Where notice of a second mortgage is given, subsequent payments into the account are applied to reduce the overdraft existing at the time of the notice and, in effect, for the benefit of the subsequent mortgagee. [6]
  • The subsequent mortgagee takes subject to the overdraft only at that time, that is to say, not subject to future advances, and the reduction of the overdraft correspondingly improves his security. If the overdraft is paid off, then any subsequent indebtedness will be by way of future advances and the bank mortgage will be postponed entirely in relation to the subsequent mortgage, although the bank mortgage does not cease to be effective between the bank and its customer, the mortgagor. [7]

The rule is only a presumption of convenience, but in practice it is difficult to displace, and can have a devastating effect on the security rights of first mortgagees. For example, suppose a customer secures an overdraft with a mortgage against their house. Then at a time when the overdraft stands at £100,000, the customer grants a second mortgage over their house as security for a term loan to another bank. If over the following nine months, the customer was to pay £90,000 into the account and draw a further £70,000 out of the account, the amount owed to the first bank would be reduced to only £80,000, but they would only have first ranking security for a mere £10,000. For the remaining £70,000 they would rank behind the second mortgagee.

Accordingly, in practice a bank will normally "break" an account when they receive notice of a subsequent charge over property which stands as security for an overdraft. [8]

Statutory modification

Ultimately, Hopkinson was thought to cause more inconvenience than it solved, and a number of common law jurisdictions have sought to modify the position by statute. [9]

Modification in England and Wales

The Parliament of the United Kingdom has modified the application of the common law rules in several respects: [10]

(a) the intervening mortgagee consents,
(b) the bank had no notice of the intervening mortgage at the time of the advance, [lower-alpha 2] or
(c) the original mortgage actually obliged the bank to make further advances.
(a) the intervening mortgagee consents,
(b) the bank had no notice of the intervening mortgage from the subsequent mortgagee, or
(c) the original mortgage actually obliged the bank to make further advances and this agreement had been entered in the register prior to the creation of the subsequent charge.

Notes

  1. ↑ Gordon v Graham, (1716) 2 Eq Cas Abr 598, 22 ER 502, as subsequently quoted in Hopkinson v Rolt: [1] "A. mortgages to B. for a Term of Years, to secure a Sum of £ already lent to A., as also such other Sums as should hereafter be lent or advanced to him. A. makes a second Mortgage to C. for a certain Sum, with Notice of the first Mortgage; and then the first Mortgagee, having Notice of the second Mortgage, lends a further Sum.... Per Cowper,C. The second Mortgagee shall not redeem the first Mortgage, without paying as well the Money lent after, as that lent before the second Mortgage was made; for it was the Folly of the second Mortgagee, with Notice, to take such Security."
  2. ↑ but s. 94(2) provides that, "where the prior mortgage was made expressly for securing a current account or other further advances," registration of the charge does not constitute notice if it was not registered in a local deed registry at the time of its creation

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 Hopkinson v Rolt(1861)9 HL Cas 514, 11 E.R. 829
  2. ↑ Westpac Banking Corporation v Adelaide Bank Limited [2005] NSWSC 517 (30 June 2005)
  3. ↑ Medoc Properties Limited v. Standard Trust Company, 2014 NLCA 13 at par. 27–29(4 March 2014), citing Gilmore, Grant (1965). Security Interests and Personal Property. Vol. II. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. pp. 1020–1021, 1032. ISBN   1-886363-81-1.
  4. ↑ Devaynes v Noble (1816)(1816) 1 Mer 529, 35 ER 767 (9 March 1816)
  5. ↑ Sibbles v Highfern Pty Ltd [1987] HCA 66 at par. 11 (majority), 164 CLR 214(23 December 1987)
  6. ↑ Deeley v. Lloyds Bank, Limited, (1912) AC 756, discussed at Paget, John (1922). The Law of Banking (3rd ed.). London: Butterworth. pp. 74–76.
  7. ↑ London and County Banking Company v. Ratcliffe, (1881) 6 AC 722, at p 737, discussed at Paget, p. 394
  8. ↑ In practice, most security documents provide that granting a subsequent charge is actually an event of default, and could potentially result in enforcement action by the bank.
  9. ↑ See, for example, s. 49, Land Registration Act 2002 in the United Kingdom, Property Law Act , RSBC 1996, c. 377, s. 28 in British Columbia, Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s 82 in Queensland and Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap. 219)  § 45 in Hong Kong.
  10. ↑ Ellinger, Eliahu Peter; Lomnicka, Eva Z.; Hare, Christopher V.M. (2006). Ellinger's Modern Banking Law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 829. ISBN   978-0-19-923209-3.

Related Research Articles

A mortgage is a legal instrument of the common law which is used to create a security interest in real property held by a lender as a security for a debt, usually a mortgage loan. Hypothec is the corresponding term in civil law jurisdictions, albeit with a wider sense, as it also covers non-possessory lien.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreclosure</span> Legal process where a lender recoups an unpaid loan by forcing the borrower to sell the collateral

Foreclosure is a legal process in which a lender attempts to recover the balance of a loan from a borrower who has stopped making payments to the lender by forcing the sale of the asset used as the collateral for the loan.

A reverse mortgage is a mortgage loan, usually secured by a residential property, that enables the borrower to access the unencumbered value of the property. The loans are typically promoted to older homeowners and typically do not require monthly mortgage payments. Borrowers are still responsible for property taxes or homeowner's insurance. Reverse mortgages allow older people to immediately access the home equity they have built up in their homes, and defer payment of the loan until they die, sell, or move out of the home. Because there are no required mortgage payments on a reverse mortgage, the interest is added to the loan balance each month. The rising loan balance can eventually grow to exceed the value of the home, particularly in times of declining home values or if the borrower continues to live in the home for many years. However, the borrower is generally not required to repay any additional loan balance in excess of the value of the home.

In finance, a security interest is a legal right granted by a debtor to a creditor over the debtor's property which enables the creditor to have recourse to the property if the debtor defaults in making payment or otherwise performing the secured obligations. One of the most common examples of a security interest is a mortgage: a person borrows money from the bank to buy a house, and they grant a mortgage over the house so that if they default in repaying the loan, the bank can sell the house and apply the proceeds to the outstanding loan.

The equity of redemption refers to the right of a mortgagor to redeem his or her property once the debt secured by the mortgage has been discharged.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mortgage</span> Loan secured using real estate

A mortgage loan or simply mortgage, in civil law jurisdictions known also as a hypothec loan, is a loan used either by purchasers of real property to raise funds to buy real estate, or by existing property owners to raise funds for any purpose while putting a lien on the property being mortgaged. The loan is "secured" on the borrower's property through a process known as mortgage origination. This means that a legal mechanism is put into place which allows the lender to take possession and sell the secured property to pay off the loan in the event the borrower defaults on the loan or otherwise fails to abide by its terms. The word mortgage is derived from a Law French term used in Britain in the Middle Ages meaning "death pledge" and refers to the pledge ending (dying) when either the obligation is fulfilled or the property is taken through foreclosure. A mortgage can also be described as "a borrower giving consideration in the form of a collateral for a benefit (loan)".

Tabula in naufragio is a legal Latin phrase, literally interpreted as "a plank in a shipwreck". It is used metaphorically, particularly in law, to convey: "when all else has failed, it is the thing that stops you from drowning." It is most commonly used to designate the power subsisting in a third mortgagee, who took the third mortgage without notice of the second mortgage, and then acquired the first mortgage and attached it to the third mortgage, thereby obtaining priority over the second mortgagee. Without the legal ability to attach ("tack") to the first mortgage, the third mortgage would be worthless.

A deed of trust refers to a type of legal instrument which is used to create a security interest in real property and real estate. In a deed of trust, a person who wishes to borrow money conveys legal title in real property to a trustee, who holds the property as security for a loan (debt) from the lender to the borrower. The equitable title remains with the borrower. The borrower is referred to as the trustor, while the lender is referred to as the beneficiary.

In a ship mortgage or ship hypothec, a shipowner gives a lender a security interest in a ship as collateral for a mortgage loan. Similar to other types of mortgages, a ship mortgage legally consists of three parts: the mortgage loan, the mortgage document (deed) and the rights derived from the mortgage deed onto money lender. Ship mortgages differ from other types of mortgage in three ways. First, some privileged claims could have a higher ranking over that of mortgagee against the ship. Second, ships naturally move between jurisdictions. And third, a ship is always at risk of partial or total damages at sea. The use of ship mortgages emerged as a widely accepted practice in shipping industry in the 19th century as a major source of finance for ship owners.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is an American privately held corporation. MERS is a separate and distinct corporation that serves as a nominee on mortgages after the turn of the century and is owned by holding company MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., which owns and operates an electronic registry known as the MERS system, which is designed to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgages in the United States. According to the Department of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, MERS is an agent for lenders without any reference to MERS as a principal. On October 5, 2018, Intercontinental Exchange and MERS announced that ICE had acquired all of MERS.

Landmark National Bank v. Kesler is a Kansas Supreme Court case involving the standing, rights, and interests of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). On August 28, 2009, the court held that all indispensable parties must be identified and that the actual lender identified in foreclosure actions to protect each party's rights. The decision also addressed the role MERS plays in clouding the ownership of the promissory note and title to the property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African property law</span> Important aspects of redistribution agreement

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary management relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

<i>Medforth v Blake</i>

Medforth v Blake[1999] EWCA Civ 1482 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the duties of a receiver and manager in the United Kingdom, over and above a duty of good faith, as to the manner in which he conducts a business.

<i>Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd</i>

Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd[1992] UKPC 34, [1993] AC 295 is a New Zealand insolvency law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the nature and extent of the liability of a mortgagee, or a receiver and manager, to a mortgagor or a subsequent debenture holder for his actions.

George Pilcher (1801–1855) was an English aural surgeon and medical reformer.

<i>Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd</i> 1971 English tort law case

Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance[1971] EWCA Civ 9 is an English tort law case, establishing the lender must publish/promote the materially beneficial key, intrinsic facts as to land in mortgage repossession sales. As it affects the duty of mortgagees, to that extent it can be considered within the periphery of English land law also.

<i>Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc</i>

Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc [2000] QB 263 is an English land law case, concerning mortgage arrears and a rare mortgage over a family home which had a right to enter a home and sell it without a court order.

<i>Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan</i>

Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996] 1 WLR 343 is an English land law case, concerning mortgage arrears.

Mortgages in English law are a method of raising capital through a loan contract. Typically with a bank, the lender/mortgagee gives money to the borrower/mortgagor, who uses their property/land/home as security that they will repay the debt and any relevant interest. If the mortgagor fails to repay, then the mortgaged property which has been used as security may be subject to various mortgagee remedies allowing them to retrieve the debt. Mortgages are an important part of English land law and property law. These concern, first, the common law, statutory and regulatory rules to protect the mortgagor at the time of concluding the mortgage agreement. Second, English law defines and restricts the process for taking possession of property in the event of default. Third, it places duties on mortgagees on the price it achieves when selling property.

Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.